Another paid editing service, Gnosis Arts Options

[carbuncle]

I'm not sure if this was a complaint from an associate or a sockpuppet, but I found it amusing.

... He has paid for the work, and yet is not listed in Wikipedia, and is understandably upset. I thank you kindly and respectfully for mediation help refarding the Kegel Male Trainer, and my client, Mr. Al Dana. Smkovalinsky (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

[thekohser]

I'm not sure if this was a complaint from an associate or a sockpuppet, but I found it amusing.

... He has paid for the work, and yet is not listed in Wikipedia, and is understandably upset. I thank you kindly and respectfully for mediation help refarding the Kegel Male Trainer, and my client, Mr. Al Dana. Smkovalinsky (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own even-handed "A.B." says it was a sockpuppet.

Whoops -- look out. Looks like the paid editing business will be hibernating like Wikipedia Review now.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Tue 2nd June 2009, 6:37pm

[Hipocrite]

I'm not sure if this was a complaint from an associate or a sockpuppet, but I found it amusing.

... He has paid for the work, and yet is not listed in Wikipedia, and is understandably upset. I thank you kindly and respectfully for mediation help refarding the Kegel Male Trainer, and my client, Mr. Al Dana. Smkovalinsky (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own even-handed "A.B." says it was a sockpuppet.

That's a checkuser confirmed sockpuppet. Why can't you paid editors play by the rules, exactly?

[thekohser]

That's a checkuser confirmed sockpuppet. Why can't you paid editors play by the rules, exactly?

Well, for me, I began to give up on "the rules" when Jimmy Wales violated "the rules" when without notice or cause, he backed out of our concordat on paid editing, with malice. Then, when Guy Chapman -- 15 months after the fact -- went back in to cover up evidence that his self-proclaimed ab initio article about Arch Coal was, in fact, plagiarized from my original (non-paid) article about Arch Coal... that's when I fully gave up on playing by "the rules" of Wikipedia.

Why don't the wagon drivers start playing by "the rules", and then we here in the back of the wagon will be less rowdy?

[GlassBeadGame]

That's a checkuser confirmed sockpuppet. Why can't you paid editors play by the rules, exactly?

Well, for me, I began to give up on "the rules" when Jimmy Wales violated "the rules" when without notice or cause, he backed out of our concordat on paid editing, with malice. Then, when Guy Chapman -- 15 months after the fact -- went back in to cover up evidence that his self-proclaimed ab initio article about Arch Coal was, in fact, plagiarized from my original (non-paid) article about Arch Coal... that's when I fully gave up on playing by "the rules" of Wikipedia.

Why don't the wagon drivers start playing by "the rules", and then we here in the back of the wagon will be less rowdy?

Tell 'em Rowdy. Time to leave this cattle drive and make some money on spaghetti westerns or something.

[sbrown]

So, if a COI flag is imprinted on an article, what sort of remedy would it take to get it removed?

You just need a little tagteam. One admin removes the tag. If someone restores it another admin blocks him for editwarring.

This post has been edited by sbrown: Tue 2nd June 2009, 9:08pm

[Hipocrite]

So you're saying that you didn't go around advertising your services on COI AFD's inbetween your first block and your third one? PULL THE OTHER ONE!

This post has been edited by Hipocrite: Wed 3rd June 2009, 2:26pm

[Kato]

So you're saying that you didn't go around advertising your services on COI AFD's inbetween your first block and your third one? PULL THE OTHER ONE!

Gasp! He did what????

Next thing you'll be telling me he did a NOP CFQ on a BWG!!!

[Random832]

So you're saying that you didn't go around advertising your services on COI AFD's inbetween your first block and your third one?

I'm not sure exactly _what_ this translates to, but I do recall (I'm not 100% sure on this) him suggesting Wikipedia Review as a place for people to post their articles that are rejected from Wikipedia. Just as hundreds of other people suggest Wikia as a place for people to post their articles that are rejected from Wikipedia. It's not clear what, if any, "rule" this violates.

This post has been edited by Random832: Wed 3rd June 2009, 3:17pm

[Jon Awbrey]

So you're saying that you didn't go around advertising your services on COI AFD's inbetween your first block and your third one? PULL THE OTHER ONE!

Gasp! He did what????

Next thing you'll be telling me he did a NOP CFQ on a BWG!!!

Dat's nuttin' — I heard he did a φlat φoot φloogie with a φloy, φloy …

Ja Ja

[Somey]

So you're saying that you didn't go around advertising your services on COI AFD's inbetween your first block and your third one?

I'm not sure exactly _what_ this translates to, but I do recall (I'm not 100% sure on this) him suggesting Wikipedia Review as a place for people to post their articles that are rejected from Wikipedia. Just as hundreds of other people suggest Wikia as a place for people to post their articles that are rejected from Wikipedia.

I'm fairly certain that at no point did Mr. Kohs "advertise" anything on Wikipedia, if we accept the definition of "advertising" that's used in the real world. Wikipedia does not accept advertising. He may have promoted Wikipedia Review there, as he occasionally does here, but that's not the same thing. (I know, semantics...)

There's also a difference between Wikipedia Review, the paid writing service, and Wikipedia Review.com, the MediaWiki website that allows companies to post WML articles in protected directories. If you bash Mr. Kohs for promoting the latter, then to be strictly fair about it, you'd have to eliminate quite a large chunk of external links from Wikipedia in general, the ones to Wikia in particular. As for the former, I'd say the only significant "violation" would have involved his initial announcement of the paid-writing service, which could be interpreted as going against WP:USERPAGE, though that's technically a "guideline."

As for conflict of interest, we've been over that a million times. At least half of the "editors" on Wikipedia have conflicts of interest, if you accept WP's definition of the term. The only difference is that Greg made it clear what he was doing up-front.

I would've thought this was just stating the obvious, but apparently not!

It's not clear what, if any, "rule" this violates.

WP:WEMUSTHAVETOTALCONTROL, isn't it?

[Hipocrite]

I'm not sure exactly _what_ this translates to, but I do recall (I'm not 100% sure on this) him suggesting Wikipedia Review as a place for people to post their articles that are rejected from Wikipedia. Just as hundreds of other people suggest Wikia as a place for people to post their articles that are rejected from Wikipedia.

You don't recall him following AFD's that were obvious spam and voting delete with a comment something like "This article is terrible! If only you had paid a good editing service like Wikipedia Review!?!"

Perhaps you should refresh your recolection.

I'm fairly certain that at no point did Mr. Kohs "advertise" anything on Wikipedia, if we accept the definition of "advertising" that's used in the real world. Wikipedia does not accept advertising. He may have promoted Wikipedia Review there, as he occasionally does here, but that's not the same thing. (I know, semantics...)

I'm pretty sure you're wrong, and I'll find the diffs if you're recollection isn't refreshed by above. I'm not refering to his wiki.

Finally, I'm well aware that vast majorities of contributors have financial conflicts of interest. I'd start by banning all the cold fusioneers and assorted other new-science donation scams, because those prey on innocent old grandmas. Greg was just a squished bug for being obvious and annoying, because, well, he's obvious, and annoying.

This post has been edited by Somey: Wed 3rd June 2009, 6:31pm

[Random832]

I'll find the diffs

[thekohser]

So you're saying that you didn't go around advertising your services on COI AFD's inbetween your first block and your third one? PULL THE OTHER ONE!

Hipo, when I did that, I placed a little "smiley wink" icon, right after I said it. It is known in western culture as "a joke". Perhaps you're not comfortable with that concept?

Please. How smart would it be "advertising" (or, promoting) on damaged-goods articles, which will be read mostly by opponents of paid editing, anyway?

It doesn't make sense on any level to assign "blame" to me for this one-time joke, for which I gladly accepted the one-week block.

I'll find the diffs

It's not difficult to find.

The block log from AlisonW (another controversial, self-promoting, sockpuppeting admin -- go figure) makes the diff plain as day:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=70760553

See the winking smiley, everyone?

Greg

This post has been edited by thekohser: Wed 3rd June 2009, 5:13pm

[Somey]

I'm pretty sure you're wrong, and I'll find the diffs if you're recollection isn't refreshed by above. I'm not refering to his wiki.

I'll save you the trouble - the diffs are here and here. On August 20, 2006, Greg did that twice, was asked to stop, and he then stopped. (I believe he was also blocked for a few days.) At the time, there was no specific rule against it - they created the rule in response, pursuant to this discussion that was going on around the same time - though I realize that's irrelevant to most WP'ers.

My point was only that this isn't "advertising" - if it were advertising in the real-world sense, then Wikipedia would have taken money (or barter) from Greg and would then have been obligated to carry whatever Greg wished to say about his company and its services (if they accepted it in the first place). "Promotion" is a different concept. Again, I understand that this distinction is irrelevant to most WP'ers.

Greg was just a squished bug for being obvious and annoying, because, well, he's obvious, and annoying.

But why is he annoying? Is it because he's obvious, or is it because he just won't go away when you tell him to?


Moderator's note: Off-topic posts about page views, Alexa rankings, and related general unpleasantness were moved here (viewable by contributing members only).

[Milton Roe]

So you're saying that you didn't go around advertising your services on COI AFD's inbetween your first block and your third one? PULL THE OTHER ONE!

Really. Between blocks he could have practiced COI AFD Interuptus. But what do you expect? Build a giant blank billboard by the freeway and then complain about advertising and graffiti people going by put on it? If you build it, they will, erm... come.

[thekohser]

Jimbo blocked Petrosianii.

[thekohser]

Our pal Mr. Bryant is now taking to grabbing content from right here at Wikipedia Review, then publishing it on his own blog.

[Jon Awbrey]

Our pal Mr. Bryant is now taking to grabbing content from right here at Wikipedia Review, then publishing it on his own blog.

He must think The Wikipedia Review is CC-BY-Essjay

Jon

[Zoloft]

Our pal Mr. Bryant is now taking to grabbing content from right here at Wikipedia Review, then publishing it on his own blog.

If I have my digital lawyerin' right, you have an inherent copyright on anything you post here.
Iffen ya don't like that crawdad publishin' what yew wrote, stick a DMCA takedown request in his mailbox.
Varmints.